FACTS:

This case involves the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592. The IRR provides for new procedures and standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance. The petitioners argue that the prospective application of the good conduct time allowance under R.A. No. 10592 is illegal. They contend that the law should apply retroactively to give them the benefit of the new provisions. R.A. No. 10592, signed into law on May 29, 2013, amended Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code (RPC) pertaining to preventive imprisonment and good conduct allowances. The modifications introduced certain conditions and standards for the grant of good conduct time allowance, such as excluding recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons charged with heinous crimes from its coverage.

These cases raise the question of the validity of the provision in the IRR of RA 10592 that directs the prospective application of certain time allowances for inmates.

The petitioners, acting as representatives of their member organizations, filed the petitions as a class suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated inmates. They contend that RA 10592, which provides for benefits to inmates, should be given retroactive effect in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. They also argue that the IRR contradicts the law it implements.

Additional petitions-in-intervention were filed by other inmates, including those represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), arguing that the provision in question is contrary to the equal protection clause of the Constitution and ultra vires.

Another petition, relating to the same issue, was filed by inmates from the Maximum Security Compound of the NBP against the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary, Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) Acting Director, and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) Chief Superintendent. The inmates argue that the provision of the IRR was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The petitioners in this case are claiming that the prospective application of the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592 was issued with grave abuse of discretion, and therefore void and illegal. They argue that R.A. 10592 does not explicitly state that its provisions shall have prospective application.

They further contend that Section 4 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 10592 is contrary to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for retroactive application of penal laws that are beneficial to the accused.

The petitioners also assert that Section 4, Rule I of the IRR violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and substantive due process.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petition complies with the requirement of an actual case or controversy.

2. Whether the petition satisfies the requirement of ripeness.

3. Whether the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10592

4. Whether the petitions for certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to assail the validity of the IRR

5. What are the requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari?

6. What is the nature and function of the writ of prohibition?

7. Can the remedies of certiorari and prohibition be used to raise constitutional issues and review the acts of legislative and executive officials?

8. Does the Court have the duty and obligation to determine the validity of assailed legislative or executive actions?

9. Whether the principle of hierarchy of courts should be strictly observed in this case.

10. Whether the petitions should be dismissed for failure to comply with the proper remedy of filing a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

11. Whether R.A. No. 10592 is a penal law as defined under Article 22 of the RPC.

12. Whether the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 should be applied retroactively.

13. Whether the creation of a Management and Screening Evaluation Committee (MSEC) is a precondition for the application of Republic Act No. 10592 (R.A. No. 10592).

14. Whether the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 10592 went beyond the legal mandate by providing rules that were not contemplated by the law.

15. Whether the re-computation of time allowances should be done retroactively.

16. Whether the standard of behavior in granting good conduct time allowance (GCTA) remains to be "good conduct."

RULING:

1. The petition complies with the requirement of an actual case or controversy. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution. In this case, there is a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced based on existing law and jurisprudence. The legal issue posed is ripe for adjudication as the challenged regulation has a direct adverse effect on the petitioners and those similarly situated. The petitioners have alleged an immediate or threatened injury as a result of the act complained of.

2. The petition satisfies the requirement of ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. In this case, the challenged regulation has a direct adverse effect on the petitioners and those similarly situated. They have sustained or are immediately in danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of the act complained of. It is not necessary to wait for the actual organization and operation of the specialized body to consider the controversy ripe.

3. The petitioners have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR. They have a personal stake in the outcome of the case as they are directly affected by the provision, which could potentially shorten or delay their stay in prison. It is not necessary for the petitioners to show that they have been granted Good Conduct Time Allowances (GCTAs) as the absence of GCTAs is precisely due to the prospective application of the law. The submission of certified prison records is immaterial in determining legal standing because the possible violation has already occurred through the issuance of the IRR.

4. Although the petition for certiorari and prohibition may not be the appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of the IRR as it was issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative functions, such petitions are allowed to raise constitutional issues and review the acts of legislative and executive officials. Certiorari and prohibition are remedies for determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and they are governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

5. The requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari are provided under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The sole office of the writ is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

6. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy used for the re-examination of some action of an inferior tribunal. It is directed to the cause or proceeding in the lower court and not to the court itself. Prohibition is the proper remedy to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction, maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels, and afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court.

7. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition can be used to raise constitutional issues and review the acts of legislative and executive officials, as they are necessarily broader in scope and reach. The writs may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government, even if they do not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions.

8. The Court has the duty and obligation to determine the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action, consistent with the republican system of checks and balances. The Court may make the necessary inquiry to set right and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties.

9. The principle of hierarchy of courts need not be strictly observed in this case due to exceptional and compelling circumstances. The Court has the discretion to entertain a direct resort to the Supreme Court in cases of national interest, serious implications, transcendental importance, and first impression. Considering the nationwide implications of the petitions, extensive scope of the subject matter, upholding of public policy, and repercussions on society, the Court deems it necessary to waive the rule on hierarchy of courts.

10. The petitions need not be dismissed for failure to file a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. While the proper remedy to question the validity of the administrative issuance is through a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC, the Court may overlook the rules in order to dispense substantive justice, especially when the right to liberty is on the line. The Court acknowledges the urgency to address the concerns of the numerous affected inmates and grants leniency to allow the fullest opportunity for the petitioners to establish the merits of their case.

11. Yes, R.A. No. 10592 is considered a penal law. While it does not define a crime or provide a penalty, its provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. It addresses the rehabilitation component of the correctional system and the reduction on the length of the penalty of imprisonment is beneficial to both the detention and convicted prisoners. Thus, it falls under the definition of a penal law under Article 22 of the RPC.

12. The provisions of R.A. No. 10592 should be applied retroactively. The retroactive application of the law is in line with the clear mandate of Article 22 of the RPC, which provides for the retroactive application of penal laws that are beneficial to the accused. Denying the retroactive application would result in extending the sentence and increasing the punishment for the crimes committed, which goes against the purpose of Article 22.

13. The creation of the MSEC is not a precondition for the application of R.A. No. 10592. The law itself does not require the establishment of MSECs before its provisions can be applied.

14. The IRR of R.A. No. 10592 is declared invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of GCTA, time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty. The IRR went outside the bounds of its legal mandate by providing rules beyond what was contemplated by the law to be enforced.

15. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology are required to re-compute with reasonable dispatch the time allowances due to the petitioners and all those who are similarly situated. The immediate release from imprisonment is to be done in case of full service of sentence, unless the person is being confined for any other lawful cause.

16. The standard of behavior in granting GCTA remains to be "good conduct." The definition of what constitutes "good conduct" has been consistent throughout the years.

PRINCIPLES:

• The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.

• An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution. The petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action.

• A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. The petitioner must show that they have sustained or are immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of. Concrete acts are not necessary for a controversy to be considered ripe.

• Legal standing requires a personal and substantial interest in the case, with the party sustaining or about to sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act being challenged.

• A party challenging the constitutionality of a law must show that they have been or are about to be denied a right or privilege to which they are lawfully entitled, or that they are about to be subjected to burdens or penalties by reason of the statute complained of.

• Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to raise constitutional issues and review the acts of legislative and executive officials. These remedies are used to determine and correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• The writ of certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• Prohibition is a preventative remedy against future action and is directed to the court itself, while certiorari is a corrective remedy directed to the cause or proceeding in the lower court.

• Certiorari and prohibition can be used to review acts of legislative and executive officials and raise constitutional issues.

• The Court has the duty and obligation to determine the validity of assailed legislative or executive actions, consistent with the system of checks and balances.

• The principle of hierarchy of courts may be waived by the Supreme Court in exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest, serious implications, transcendental importance, and first impression.

• The right to liberty, which is second only to life in the hierarchy of constitutional rights, is a basic constitutional and natural right that cannot be lightly taken away.

• The principle favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect) is well-established in criminal law. It allows for the retroactive application of penal laws that are favorable or advantageous to the accused, unless the accused is a habitual criminal. This principle is based on sentiments of humanity and principles of strict justice.

• Penal laws are those that prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations, or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment.

• The term "penal laws" mentioned in Article 22 of the RPC refers to substantive laws, not procedural rules.

• In determining whether a law is penal, the focus should be on whether it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state, regardless of whether it defines a crime or provides a penalty.

• The retroactive application of penal laws that are beneficial to the accused is mandated by Article 22 of the RPC.

• The retroactive application of a law is deemed beneficial when it diminishes the punishment or penalties attached to the crime.

• The prospective application of a law that decreases the penalty attached to a crime works to the disadvantage of the accused, as it prolongs their prison stay and increases their punishment.

• Administrative IRRs must be in harmony with the provisions of the law and should only be for the purpose of carrying the law's general provisions into effect.

• An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

• The standard of behavior in granting GCTA remains to be "good conduct."